[Bug 58198] Move Jingle code to Wocky

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58198

Will Thompson <will.thompson at collabora.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |will.thompson at collabora.co.
                   |                            |uk

--- Comment #2 from Will Thompson <will.thompson at collabora.co.uk> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yeah should the quirks really be in the public API? (yes I realise talking
> about public API with Wocky is a bit of a joke) They could at least be more
> internal, no?

How could they be made “more internal”? The JingleSession & friends needs to
know stuff, and Gabble needs to answer the query-caps signal.

Perhaps one solution would be to remove the need for some of the quirks.
Another solution would be to move more of the caps machinery down.

> I didn't check all the new jingle docstrings word for word; I reckon they'll
> be fine.

There'll be more where they came from.

> I see you've moved this stuff into wocky/jingle-*.[ch]. Although I hate the
> "wocky-" prefix as much as anyone else, I think inconsistency is even worse.
> What are your thoughts on this? Perhaps it's less of a problem given we have
> a big wocky.h now? Speaking of which...

Yeah, I think it's probably worse to be inconsistent.

> The new headers don't have the WOCKY_H_INSIDE check.

Nor are they included in wocky.h, so that's okay ;)

> I did a git grep -i gabble in your wocky tree and there are loads of
> references that probably shouldn't be around anymore, like header guards,
> comments listing the filename as gabble-jingle-session.c and stuff like
> that. It would be nicer to have less of this.

Yes there are, I'll fix this.

> Otherwise hot. I wonder if we could feasibly have roughly the same test
> coverage of the Jingle code directly in Wocky one day? Sounds pretty tricky
> to me tbh.

You're not wrong!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.